Jump to content
Guest KJP

Northeast Ohio: Regionalism News & Discussion

Recommended Posts

I think some suburban consolidation could be good, but I do fear that a full city/county consolidation will cause a population that is already declining to decline even further/faster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KFM44107 said:

Not that I want to spend five hours on this topic because we talk about it Ad Nauseum at work, but I promise you if us cities merged it would save the tax payer millions in overlapping costs. South Euclid already merged it's EMS with like five other cities and that saved us a ton. If we merged our court with Lyndhurst it would easily save a million dollars due to not needing to have our own judge and entire support staff. It would save on facility costs too. It would make road repairs easier because of the ability to utilize a larger pot of money to target at need streets. Beachwood already repaves roads like every five years even if they don't need it because by law they need to spend that money. Think if that money could be used in Cleveland? These are just some random examples. But one of the biggest costs it would save is having to pay 65 mayors, 65 police chiefs, 65 fire chiefs, and 65 of every director you can think of. I'm not even mentioning council people. 

 

 

Yep. Each city has its own service dept, engineering dept, parks dept, law dept, building dept, streets dept, finance dept, HR.....I could go on. All with separate equipment, personnel and properties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

 

Yep. Each city has its own service dept, engineering dept, parks dept, law dept, building dept, streets dept, finance dept, HR.....I could go on. All with separate equipment, personnel and properties.

 

Right -- but not all of that is going to just disappear or no longer be needed if we consolidate.  Some, no doubt, but not all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Right -- but not all of that is going to just disappear or no longer be needed if we consolidate.  Some, no doubt, but not all.

Obviously, but there's so much overlap that tons of positions would be cut. It would be a cost savings bordering 100 million. We haven't even begun to talk about how much money in savings would be had from communities no longer needing to compete in tax incentives against eachother anymore. Or the ability of a much larger single entity to attract companies with a streamlined plan. This county would save hundreds of millions of dollars. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JSC216 said:

I think some suburban consolidation could be good, but I do fear that a full city/county consolidation will cause a population that is already declining to decline even further/faster. 

 

That's quite an understatement.   "Exodus" might be a better word.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

That's quite an understatement.   "Exodus" might be a better word.

 

This is interesting. Would either you or @JSC216 expand on what you believe would cause such a population exodus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Clvlndr in LV said:

 

This is interesting. Would either you or @JSC216 expand on what you believe would cause such a population exodus?

 

Yeah...I’m not aware of that happening in any other place that a merger has taken place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It’s understandable that struggling local governments would consider government consolidation. The theory has some appeal, and if done well it may provide some benefits. But overall, there’s little evidence that it significantly improves government efficiency or leads to better economic outcomes. It also reduces experimentation, which can hinder long-run improvements in the provision of government goods and services. City officials and residents should consider all of this before making any changes.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2017/11/06/local-government-consolidation-is-not-a-panacea/

 

This also is interesting:

https://www.aaronrenn.com/2010/02/28/downsides-of-consolidation-1-neighborhood-redevelopment/

 

Some municipal consolidations include Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Louisville.  The author of this site also discusses Chicago and Columbus, two metros that effectively cover most of their locales.  And Cincinnati could be considered another extreme, with the center city finally making a comeback amidst even more municipal governments than in Cuyahoga.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Foraker said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2017/11/06/local-government-consolidation-is-not-a-panacea/

 

This also is interesting:

https://www.aaronrenn.com/2010/02/28/downsides-of-consolidation-1-neighborhood-redevelopment/

 

Some municipal consolidations include Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Louisville.  The author of this site also discusses Chicago and Columbus, two metros that effectively cover most of their locales.  And Cincinnati could be considered another extreme, with the center city finally making a comeback amidst even more municipal governments than in Cuyahoga.

I didn't read the article but Minneapolis is sort of a quasi consolidation. They just do regional tax sharing which is a solid middle ground between the differing viewpoints we are sharing with each other today. As an analogy it's more of a help your neighbor opposed to a becoming your neighbor, and is different than the current Cuyahoga method, the call the city and complain about your neighbor but don't do anything constructive to help. 

Edited by KFM44107

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another consolidation study from the University of Illinois.

 

Quote

Although some scholars, such as Faulk and Hicks (2011) have found statistical evidence that positive financial benefits are hypothetically possible from consolidation, most data indicates that human decisions, actions, and necessary compromises do not predictably and reliably lead to cost savings, and in fact may actually lead to increased costs.

2

 

https://www.pdop.org/assets/1/7/IAPD_Local_Government_Consolidation_Report.pdf

 

In summary, while consolidation sounds good in theory, in practice consolidation does not appear to have resulted in cost savings.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the only immediate consolidation that makes sense is Cleveland and Clev. Hts. adsorbing E. Cleveland.  That has to happen to stop the decline of E. Cleveland and the negative consequences on both of the adjoining cities. 

 

It will be expensive in the short run, but inexpensive in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 4:15 PM, Terdolph said:

To me, the only immediate consolidation that makes sense is Cleveland and Clev. Hts. adsorbing E. Cleveland.  That has to happen to stop the decline of E. Cleveland and the negative consequences on both of the adjoining cities. 

 

It will be expensive in the short run, but inexpensive in the long run.

To me that doesn't make any sense. Cleveland Heights is not big enough (Financially) to absorb a community like East Cleveland in the condition it is in. Cleveland is the only city big enough and adjacent enough to be able to do that and even then it wouldn't make sense without extensive state and federal funding (Grants). If there is no outside help, I would think the seeds being planted in the form of property acquisitions by entities located on the west side of the Cleveland/East Cleveland border will begin to bloom before an annexation occurs by either city. That, and getting the current council out of power are what is needed immediately to stop EC from declining further.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 4:15 PM, Terdolph said:

To me, the only immediate consolidation that makes sense is Cleveland and Clev. Hts. adsorbing E. Cleveland.  That has to happen to stop the decline of E. Cleveland and the negative consequences on both of the adjoining cities. 

 

It will be expensive in the short run, but inexpensive in the long run.

 

There was a perfect time a couple of years ago when the State of Ohio could have stepped in and forced the merger with Cleveland; but I suspect the Kasich people felt the gain wasn't worth the static it would generate.


There's nothing wrong with optimism, as long as you don't get your hopes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 12:13 PM, Clvlndr in LV said:

 

This is interesting. Would either you or @JSC216 expand on what you believe would cause such a population exodus?

 

Assuming that if some external power forced a complete merger of Cuyahoga County into the City of Cleveland (it would never happen voluntarily), you don't think people would seek to move out, much as they have moved out of the City of Cleveland?   

 

It would be skewed towards the more affluent, so the departure of resources would be more profound than the departure of population.

City population declines from previous census:
 

1970  −14.3%

1980 −23.6%

1990 −11.9%

2000 −5.4%

2010 −17.1%

Est. 2017 −2.8%

 

Cuyahoga County:

 

1970 +4.5%

1980 −12.9%

1990  −5.8%

2000 −1.3%

2010  −8.2%

Est. 2018 −2.8%

 

The MSA:

 

1970 9.1%

1980 −6.3%

1990 −3.3%

2000 2.2%

2010 −3.3%

Est. 2018 −1.0%

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mov2Ohio said:

To me that doesn't make any sense. Cleveland Heights is not big enough (Financially) to absorb a community like East Cleveland in the condition it is in. Cleveland is the only city big enough and adjacent enough to be able to do that and even then it wouldn't make sense without extensive state and federal funding (Grants). If there is no outside help, I would think the seeds being planted in the form of property acquisitions by entities located on the west side of the Cleveland/East Cleveland border will begin to bloom before an annexation occurs by either city. That, and getting the current council out of power are what is needed immediately to stop EC from declining further.

Clev. Hts. would only absorb the part of E. Clev. up the hill from Euclid.  That is a small section and is in reasonably good shape.  Clev. would absorb the rest.  The State previously offered $10 million to Clev. to do so.  If the State offered, say $100 million it would be doable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

Clev. Hts. would only absorb the part of E. Clev. up the hill from Euclid.  That is a small section and is in reasonably good shape.  Clev. would absorb the rest.  The State previously offered $10 million to Clev. to do so.  If the State offered, say $100 million it would be doable.

I think if Cleveland took it over, they'd want the up the hill portion too.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I think if Cleveland took it over, they'd want the up the hill portion too.  

It is sort of a natural dividing line.  The uphill part looks like it is part of Cleve. Hts. anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Terdolph said:

It is sort of a natural dividing line.  The uphill part looks like it is part of Cleve. Hts. anyway.

I get that but I think Cleveland would want the part that has some value if they took the rest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I get that but I think Cleveland would want the part that has some value if they took the rest.  

 

Thanks for clarifying @Terdolph   that split makes sense as opposed to CH taking on all of EC.

 

@freefourur While the Forest Hills portion of East Cleveland is certainly in better shape that that down the hill, I'd argue that a with its proximity to University Circle, the fastest growing job center in the state, vacant land, large homes (A lot of which can still be saved if we hurry), it's two train stations and a $50-$100 million dollar check from the feds, the area down the hill probably has more value than what is presently in forest hills.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mov2Ohio said:

 

Thanks for clarifying @Terdolph   that split makes sense as opposed to CH taking on all of EC.

 

@freefourur While the Forest Hills portion of East Cleveland is certainly in better shape that that down the hill, I'd argue that a with its proximity to University Circle, the fastest growing job center in the state, vacant land, large homes (A lot of which can still be saved if we hurry), it's two train stations and a $50-$100 million dollar check from the feds, the area down the hill probably has more value than what is presently in forest hills.

 

I agree with both of your assessments.  However, the Forest Hills neighborhood has value and taxable real estate in its current state.  That would be beneficial to Cleveland if they are to take over the areas with "potential" for tax revenue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I think if Cleveland took it over, they'd want the up the hill portion too.  

 

I'd say.   There's no way they would let CH cherry pick the most salvageable part and take on the rest.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mov2Ohio said:

 

Thanks for clarifying @Terdolph   that split makes sense as opposed to CH taking on all of EC.

 

@freefourur While the Forest Hills portion of East Cleveland is certainly in better shape that that down the hill, I'd argue that a with its proximity to University Circle, the fastest growing job center in the state, vacant land, large homes (A lot of which can still be saved if we hurry), it's two train stations and a $50-$100 million dollar check from the feds, the area down the hill probably has more value than what is presently in forest hills.

 

 

Depends on what's buried there.   I have a feeling we don't want to know.   The last thing Cleveland needs is more superfund sites.

Edited by E Rocc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

^ No, especially since recent migration trends are showing the opposite.

 

Is there any aggregate evidence of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yes, just look at the number of units being built (or permits pulled for new housing) inside the city limits vs outside. It's a staggering difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 3:34 PM, E Rocc said:

 

Depends on what's buried there.   I have a feeling we don't want to know.   The last thing Cleveland needs is more superfund sites.

Most of EC was/is residential, so In the areas along Euclid I don't think there would be anything too bad buried there, building foundations if anything. The area near Noble and Euclid where GEs since demolished buildings were may be a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 4:48 PM, Clefan98 said:

^ Yes, just look at the number of units being built (or permits pulled for new housing) inside the city limits vs outside. It's a staggering difference.

 

Or perhaps suburban units are being fixed not replaced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mov2Ohio said:

Most of EC was/is residential, so In the areas along Euclid I don't think there would be anything too bad buried there, building foundations if anything. The area near Noble and Euclid where GEs since demolished buildings were may be a different story.

 

Asbestos comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Or perhaps suburban units are being fixed not replaced.

Though you could say the same for Cleveland. I fathom just from eye balling streets I drive down that it's probably a 2:1 ratio. Two houses being updated for every unit (apartment or house) being built. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 2:18 PM, Terdolph said:

It is sort of a natural dividing line.  The uphill part looks like it is part of Cleve. Hts. anyway.

It has nothing to do with a "dividing line".  The issue is the "Forest Hills" neighborhood.  That neighborhood encompass a large portion of BOTH CH and EC along with an Elementary school. Keep in mind the EC section is more valuable than the CH section. In addition, there is a (not sure if this is the correct word/term) state sponsored historic home owners association.  If EC was dissolved, I only see this portion of EC and EC Section of FH park coming into CH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 2:46 PM, E Rocc said:

 

I'd say.   There's no way they would let CH cherry pick the most salvageable part and take on the rest.

I don't think this would be considered "cherry picking" considering there is already a shared neighborhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 2:18 PM, Terdolph said:

It is sort of a natural dividing line.  The uphill part looks like it is part of Cleve. Hts. anyway.

I’m a Cleveland resident who has long supported East Cleveland becoming part of Cleveland. My position changes completely if Cleveland Heights were to get the “nice” parts. It would be blasphemous for Cleveland to agree to a merger like that. All of East Cleveland or none of it

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question that Cleveland and Cleveland Heights will want answered isn't what's the "good" or "bad" part of EC, but what, if any will be revenue positive (does it generate more in taxes than it costs to service).  I suspect that even a nice residential district like Forest Hills is likely not revenue positive- few are.  The only part of EC likely to be revenue positive would be Nela Park, assuming we can count on GE to stay long term.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, X said:

The question that Cleveland and Cleveland Heights will want answered isn't what's the "good" or "bad" part of EC, but what, if any will be revenue positive (does it generate more in taxes than it costs to service).  I suspect that even a nice residential district like Forest Hills is likely not revenue positive- few are.  The only part of EC likely to be revenue positive would be Nela Park, assuming we can count on GE to stay long term.

Which we can’t. I can tell you for a fact that people have absolutely brought up absorbing all of East Cleveland vs the whole share with CH thing. We all know the EC annexation was on the table, and that alone is a tough sell, but to absorb the unstable parts and give the stable parts to Cleveland Heights is an absolute nonstarter. I have heard a Cleveland city councilman say that specifically, as well as other residents. Taking over East Cleveland is a hard sell as it is. Because people view it as “moving in your broke ass little brother into your house when you’re struggling to survive as it is” as Councilman Polensek said (not the same councilman mentioned above btw. Polensek’s comments were public and on the record, lol). But then to cede the stable parts of EC to CH? I can’t find the words to share with this forum to demonstrate how much of a nonstarter that is. Few people in cleveland would support that at all. It just wouldn’t happen. And on principle alone, I wouldn’t support that either. And I’m pro annexation. 

Edited by inlovewithCLE
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And btw, Cleveland already knows that EC wouldn’t be revenue positive for a while. Just to get EC up to the standard of services that the rest of Cleveland has would be costly. That’s why the city wanted more money from the state to move forward with it. It would make it an easier sell politically. Mayor Jackson is interested in an EC merger, but not if the state isn’t going to kick in significant amounts to help make that happen. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way a merger will ever happen is that EC has to either go completely broke (GE pulling out of Nela Park would probably do it) or the state is going to have to force it by some sort of law in order to make it happen. Cleveland doesn’t want to do it without state assistance and EC would rather starve independently than potentially thrive as part of Cleveland 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Which we can’t. I can tell you for a fact that people have absolutely brought up absorbing all of East Cleveland vs the whole share with CH thing. We all know the EC annexation was on the table, and that alone is a tough sell, but to absorb the unstable parts and give the stable parts to Cleveland Heights is an absolute nonstarter. I have heard a Cleveland city councilman say that specifically, as well as other residents. Taking over East Cleveland is a hard sell as it is. Because people view it as “moving in your broke ass little brother into your house when you’re struggling to survive as it is” as Councilman Polensek said (not the same councilman mentioned above btw. Polensek’s comments were public and on the record, lol). But then to cede the stable parts of EC to CH? I can’t find the words to share with this forum to demonstrate how much of a nonstarter that is. Few people in cleveland would support that at all. It just wouldn’t happen. And on principle alone, I wouldn’t support that either. And I’m pro annexation. 

 

We all know that EC overall is a money loser, and the unstable parts especially so.  But if you lose $10 on the unstable parts, only losing $1 more on the stable parts doesn't make it an easier deal.  In other words, if Forest Hills isn't generating more revenue than it takes to service, Cleveland is actually better off giving it to Cleveland Heights.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, X said:

 

We all know that EC overall is a money loser, and the unstable parts especially so.  But if you lose $10 on the unstable parts, only losing $1 more on the stable parts doesn't make it an easier deal.  In other words, if Forest Hills isn't generating more revenue than it takes to service, Cleveland is actually better off giving it to Cleveland Heights.

You could make that argument for the whole damn city then lol. EC is a money loser period. But why would you want to cede a stable neighborhood to a relatively wealthy suburb while you keep the things that are in worse shape? That logic doesn’t make sense. The whole city is a money loser, so let’s get rid of the areas that are nicer than the rest of the city and require less investment to get the standard up. That makes no sense at all. Not to mention it’s an exercise in futility because any proposal that does that is DOA in Cleveland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

You could make that argument for the whole damn city then lol. EC is a money loser period. But why would you want to cede a stable neighborhood to a relatively wealthy suburb while you keep the things that are in worse shape? That logic doesn’t make sense. The whole city is a money loser, so let’s get rid of the areas that are nicer than the rest of the city and require less investment to get the standard up. That makes no sense at all. Not to mention it’s an exercise in futility because any proposal that does that is DOA in Cleveland

I think the FH neighborhood is a unique situation considering it's encompasses two different cities.  A) It continues to run as it does currently as a neighborhood of Cleveland and CH. Example Shaker Square neighborhood. B) The entire neighborhood is ceded to CH.  There is a connection via, neighborhood and school district.

Edited by MyTwoSense
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Which we can’t. I can tell you for a fact that people have absolutely brought up absorbing all of East Cleveland vs the whole share with CH thing. We all know the EC annexation was on the table, and that alone is a tough sell, but to absorb the unstable parts and give the stable parts to Cleveland Heights is an absolute nonstarter. I have heard a Cleveland city councilman say that specifically, as well as other residents. Taking over East Cleveland is a hard sell as it is. Because people view it as “moving in your broke ass little brother into your house when you’re struggling to survive as it is” as Councilman Polensek said (not the same councilman mentioned above btw. Polensek’s comments were public and on the record, lol). But then to cede the stable parts of EC to CH? I can’t find the words to share with this forum to demonstrate how much of a nonstarter that is. Few people in cleveland would support that at all. It just wouldn’t happen. And on principle alone, I wouldn’t support that either. And I’m pro annexation. 

 

This is an example of why I'll vote for Polensek as long as he runs and I live in his district.   

Though there's rumors he's already picked a successor, a neighbor of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

This is an example of why I'll vote for Polensek as long as he runs and I live in his district.   

Though there's rumors he's already picked a successor, a neighbor of mine.

I've met and dealt with Polensek many times. Before I met I didn't think I liked him but my opinion of him has changed. He's a straight shooter that doesn't try to BS you.  I like that about him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...